12 ms·
> As long as companies are driven by profits Capital really doesn't drive innovation at all except in very specific situations where there are sufficient regul
by sam0x17 5y ago
> As long as companies are driven by profits
Capital really doesn't drive innovation at all except in very specific situations where there are sufficient regulations and guardrails to coax companies in the direction of progress (and you certainly won't see innovation happening under completely unregulated capitalism). It's almost always independent and/or individual people -- researchers, open source contributors, scientists, etc -- who come up with society-changing technologies and ideas. In the mid 1900s, the large tech corporations ran enormous corporate laboratories, like the famous Bell Labs that would churn out things like this (Unix, almost the internet, etc). Rampant de-regulation of capital in the 70s and 80s led to an industry shift that removed these guardrails and incentives and made it easier to simply monopolize, price fix, and acquire your way to the top, as the oil and rail tycoons had in the early 1900s, and that is where we find ourselves now. FANG companies are not innovators -- they have become machines that swallow up the innovations of others and either neutralize or begrudgingly copy them in such a way that still manages to crush competition via economies of scale.
Google, the "great innovator" of search hasn't innovated on the topic of search engines in over a decade, and instead relies on multi-billion dollar deals to ensure Google is the default search engine on every mobile device in the world. When a competitor emerges, they acquire and shutter it, or sit pretty knowing economies of scale will ensure new competitors won't get sufficient traction.
For the last decade, Apple has simply watched the tech industry very closely, cultivated their image as a glorified fashion company (everything driven by design and status-symbol imagery), exerted monopolistic control over an entire industry via their app store fees and tight restrictions, and used their unlimited resources to copy or buy their way into the features and ideas actual innovators have proven will play well in the coming years.
Amazon uses its size and its control over a global marketplace (that they completely control) to continuously enter new markets and shutter competition with economies of scale, and is taking the same approach with AWS. Notably they won't be innovating on anything outside the realm of "just run it in our network of data centers", and everything they do with AWS is designed to pull you into the walled garden of AWS products.
Netflix has simply acquired their way into controlling a large portion of the good movie studios, their only "innovation" being on perpetuating a toxic and cutthroat company culture where everyone is constantly under review and DRM and compression technology to limit who can watch what based on expensive regional licensing deals.
All of these companies are threatened by, and afraid of innovation, and they will stop it from happening if they can. They compete and innovate, only if they have to, and would much rather just pay you to not innovate. Capital isn't going to create innovation -- regulation of capital, done correctly, will. Capital has to be dragged into innovating, kicking and screaming.
- badtension 5y agoDo you have an implementable solution for this? Would UBI be a good way to do that? I do not know much about it but it seems that it could potentially lead to a whole generations being able to try new things, tinker with technology, make mistakes, see what works what does not work. A lot of human thoughts could be shifted from "how to make sure me and my family are fed, clothed and sheltered" to more creative ones.
- sam0x17 5y agoWe need the following: 1. $500 campaign donation limit, per person, per candidate, per year. 2. Corporations not allowed to donate to politics in any way, shape, or form. Subject to a fine of 20% of the corporation's deductions or taxable revenue for the current tax year, whichever is greater (catches the "break even" monsters like Amazon), per infraction. 3. Large financial and jail-time penalties for materially incentivizing a politician for the purpose of manipulating their stance on an issue, for both the manipulator and the politician (if they are proven complicit). All that needs to be demonstrated is a quid pro quo. 4. Corporate death penalty and/or jail time for a variety of corporate issues that currently result in a mere slap-on-the-wrist fine 5. Abolish the electoral college, so we are not living under a tyranny of the few. Collectively this would end lobbying and make it impractical to entwine money with politics, resulting with, as you say, a number of policies like UBI, high quality public housing, and a social safety net that are provably more conducive to technological and societal progress. And I say this as a YC CTO who used to be a DoD research scientist.